Robb: Trump's budget is a breath of fresh air

Trump's proposed budget won't kill Big Bird, but could make the iconic bird and 'Sesame Street' much harder to access, as well as put a major strain on smaller PBS stations.
USA TODAY

President Donald Trump’s budget blueprint is refreshing, instructive and clarifying. If Trump has the political moxie to actually move the federal fisc in the direction indicated, it can also be important.

The distinguishing characteristic of the blueprint is the elimination of scores of federal programs. This is not reducing the rate of increase and calling it a cut, which is what usually passes for fiscal discipline in Washington. This is actually getting rid of the programs in their entirety.

Why are these federal responsibilities?

And there is a common characteristic to the programs proposed for elimination. They can’t really answer the question: Why should this be a federal responsibility, rather than the job of state and local governments, or the private sector?

Since "Sesame Street" departed public for commercial television, Big Bird can no longer be the rallying symbol for those wanting to keep the federal government involved in everything under the sun. It seems that Meals on Wheels has taken its place as the emblem for the resistance.

The Trump blueprint doesn’t actually defund Meals on Wheels, since it’s not a federal program. Instead, the blueprint eliminates the Community Services Block Grant and the Community Development Block Grant, which some localities in turn use to help fund Meals on Wheels.

But here is the point of clarification: Why should providing meals to homebound seniors be a federal responsibility rather than the responsibility of local governments and private charities? And why should the federal government be throwing billions of dollars at state and local governments with vague instructions to do something good with the dough?

The boldest reform since Reagan

CLOSE

The impact of Donald Trump's budget on Meals on Wheels is unclear and varies from place to place.
USA TODAY

Trump’s blueprint is the boldest attempt to revitalize true federalism, where the federal government limits itself to things that are of national scope and import, since Ronald Reagan.

A good example is transportation. The federal highway system connects states. It has national scope. But public transit is only for getting around a particular community. There’s nothing national about it. The blueprint would turn off the federal funding spigot for new local transit capital projects.

The blueprint is not wholly consistent in sorting out responsibilities among the federal government, state and local governments, and the private sector. School choice and opioid addiction are just as much local matters as training teachers or economic development in the Mississippi Delta region. Yet the blueprint recommends modest increased federal funding for both.

But, overall, it is a bracing document. Some kind of sorting out of responsibilities such as this will be necessary if the federal government’s finances are ever to be put in order.

Where Trump's budget goes off the rails

Unfortunately, however, the blueprint spends the domestic savings on an increase in military spending. Why Trump thinks this is necessary is unclear.

Trump’s instincts are that the United States is overextended in foreign commitments, and he’s right.

A $550 billion military should be sufficient to protect the country, with troops adequately trained and equipped. Provided our global footprint were reduced to be commensurate with true security interests, which don’t include which despot has the upper hand in the Middle East.

After World War II, the economies of Europe were devastated. If an expansionist Soviet Union were to be constrained, there was no alternative to the United States doing it.

Today is different. Europe has more people than the United States and an economy just as big.

Vladimir Putin’s Russia doesn’t really threaten the United States. If it threatens the stability of Europe, Europe has sufficient resources to constrain it. If Europe lacks the will to do so, that’s not something American taxpayers should be asked to compensate for.

Where the savings should go instead

The program eliminations in Trump's budget constitute the boldest revival of federalism since Reagan.(Photo: NICHOLAS KAMM, Nicholas Kamm, AFP/Getty Images)

Trump’s instincts about these matters are better than his budget. Domestic savings should go toward reducing the deficit. The mission of the military needs to be rightsized within existing budget constraints.

The country is sleepwalking toward a return of trillion dollar national deficits. Criticize Trump for not taking on reform of Social Security and Medicare, which are the ultimate drivers of unsustainable spending, if you want. But Trump is hardly alone in ducking that reality. And he is providing some political muscle to push Ryancare, which is projected to reduce Medicaid expenditures by roughly $900 billion over a decade.

The revival of federalism in the blueprint’s program eliminations is an important cause. It will be interesting to see whether congressional Republicans who were concerned that Trump wasn’t conservative enough stand tall in support of them, or scurry for the political hills.